Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 30 August 2006

Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) refers to the excessive use of skepticism to the detriment of that person and/or their relationships, or as an organized skepiticism. Sociologist and skeptic Marcello Truzzi wrote in 1987

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics

Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism

The late professor of sociology, Marcello Truzzi, identified the following characteristics of Pseudoskepticism:

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
• Double standards in the application of criticism,
• The making of judgements without full inquiry,
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof,
• Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof,
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,
• Tendency to dismiss all evidence,

History

The terms Pseudoskepticism was coined by Marcello Truzzi (sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University) in 1987, in response to the skeptic groups who applied the label of "pseudoscientists" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience.

The term Pathological skepticism was coined by Dr Ed Storms at the Third International Conference on the Cold Fusion (ICCF3), held in Nagoya, Japan in October 1992,.

Notes and references

1. L. David Leiter, "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism" (PDF), in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125–128, 2002. "... it is important to clarify a basic difference, the difference between ordinary (individual) skepticism and organized skepticism. This paper does not take issue with ordinary skepticism, which is seen as a useful and important human trait ... However, organized skepticism appears to be something very different: it might be called, in the words of Ed Storms, pathological skepticism; or in the words of Marcello Truzzi, pseudoskepticism."
2. "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.
3. "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4. "Though many in this category who dismiss and ridicule anomaly claims call themselves "skeptics," they often are really "pseudo-skeptics" because they deny rather than doubt anomaly claims"
4. Truzzi, ibid, ".. they seem less inclined to take the same critical stance towards orthodox theories. For example, they may attack alternative methods in medicine (e.g., for a lack of double-blind studies) while ignoring that similar criticisms can be levelled against much conventional medicine"
5. Truzzi, ibid, "those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry"
6. Hyman, Ray, 1980. "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy," Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 31-43. Truzzi wrote: ".. they may be more interested in discrediting an anomaly claim than in dispassionately investigating it"
7. Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks) "
8. Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims .. without presenting any solid disproof
9. Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." "
10. Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism]", Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987. "Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic"
11. Truzzi, ibid, ".. the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
12. Truzzi, ibid, ".. many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence"
13. Truzzi, ibid, "Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it."
14. Truzzi, ibid, "Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim."
15. Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." "
16. Scott R. Chubb, "Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in Research Dealing With “Cold Fusion”" (PDF, 2000) Accountability in Research, 2000. 8

See also

• Abuses of skepticism
• Some debunkers are criticized as pseudoskeptics, fighting any fringe claim at all costs (regardless of the propositions).
• Scientism refers to certain epistemologies based on science.
• Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of false impressions or advocacy of false ideas and concepts using rhetoric, logical fallacies, or insufficient or falsified evidence.
• James Randi is an opponent of various pseudosciences who has been accused of Pathological skepticism.
• Skeptic's Dictionary is a web site with a collection of cross-referenced essays over various scientific endeavors.
• Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) is an organization which professes to encourage open minded, critical investigation of paranormal
• Anomalous phenomenon
• Obsolete scientific theories
• Occam's razor
• Paradigm
• Philosophy of science

External links and resources

• Truzzi, Marcello, "On Pseudo-Skepticism". Anomalist. (Commentary)
• Truzzi, Marcello, "On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal". Oxymoron, 1998
• Drasin, Daniel, "Zen and the Art of Debunkery". aol.com, 1997.
• Milton, Richard, "Scientific skepticism".
• Mooney, Chris, "Abuses of Skepticism : Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far". CSICOP, December, 2003.
• Haack, Susan, "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism". CSICOP, December 1997.
• Sofka, Michael D., "Myths of Skepticism". ISUNY, March, 2002.
• Beaty, William J., "Symptoms of Pathological Sketicism". 1996.
• Hyman, Ray, "Proper Criticism". (csicop.org)
• Martin, Brian, "Strategies for dissenting scientists". Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12 No 4. 1998. (PDF)
• Baez, John, "The crackpot index : Method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.".
• Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Department of Psychology, Cornell University.
• Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena by Winston Wu
• Wilson, Robert Anton, interview in which he discusses CSICOP and pseudoskeptism, what he calls "irrational rationalists" and "fundamentalist materialism"
• Skepdic article on pseudo-skeptics, discussing the fallacious labeling of skeptics as "pseudo-skeptics".

• Pseudoscience